Content uploaded by Nanna Sagbauer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nanna Sagbauer on Mar 23, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Nanna Sagbauer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nanna Sagbauer on Mar 23, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing
Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v11i2.17021
Nanna Nora Sagbauer (), Martin Ebner
Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
nanna.sagbauer@htl-hl.ac.at
Abstract—This systematic literature review addresses strongly on mak-
erspaces in schools. An evaluation of literature about their status-quo shows
qualitative and quantitative knowledge gaps in the relatively new field of mak-
erspaces in and used by schools according to infrastructure, funding, and ad-
ministration. A taxonomy concerning physical existing makerspaces in schools
and used by schools including parameters like location, responsibilities, financ-
ing, instructors, users, time restrictions, and feasible maker activities is de-
veloped. Two different electronic journal databases, Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and ScienceDirect, acted as source for this litera-
ture review. Most of this existing literature concentrates on the educational
maker activities and only some feature additional information like the physical
space, the financing or else. Nonetheless, these rare findings suggest four main
categories of real-world makerspaces used for educational purposes in schools:
External makerspaces, school makerspaces, open makerspaces located in
schools, and temporary (Pop-up) makerspaces. Furthermore, we identified the
need for investigations on the question of open makerspaces located in schools
and the financial and organizational structure to operate them.
Keywords—Makerspace, literature review, taxonomy, maker education, maker
movement, vocational school, primary school, secondary school
1 Introduction
Literacy used to be the ability to read and write but became so much more during
the last century. When children leave school, they are supposed to have a certain level
of literacy. Holbert wrote in the International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction:
“Making is a literacy—a way of reading the world as a collection of resources and
materials to be composed, repurposed, and rearranged. Making is ‘what if?’ and ‘why
not?’– of positioning oneself as having power – of taking responsibility for challenges
and obstacles faced by oneself and one’s community and enacting solutions.” [20]
Schön, Ebner and Kumar stated in 2014 that “Maker students are active learners, with
a high need to explore, to discuss and to share experiences and ideas. […] In general,
the skills of creating and innovating can have a broad impact on students’ lifelong
learning and ultimately for education and society.” [34] The importance of these
iJEP ‒ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021
57
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
competences was recognized by politics and so making is already emerging in some
curricula [13, 35].
1.1 The maker movement
“The Maker Movement is a technological and creative evolution that has limitless
implications for the world of education.” [30] But how is this evolution implemented
in schools? Do schools have makerspaces where maker education takes place? Is
there a certain equipment which transfers a crafts room in school into a makerspace?
Flores defines that a makerspace “provides access to real materials and tools that
encourage students to tinker, repurpose, up-cycle, take things apart, and put them
back together again.” [14]
Papavlasopoulou et al. assessed the “Maker Movement and its emerging role in
formal and informal education” [30] when they evaluated 43 empirical studies dated
from 2011 to 2014 focusing on the making process and its effect on a successful
learning experience. All but one studies took place in schools and the activities, dura-
tion, age of the participants and used materials were systematically documented.
However, the physical space – the makerspace – where the activities took place, its
infrastructure and machinery were not considered. Ford and Minshall identified in
their 2019 article “Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education” a
lack of literature on 3D printing technologies used in the education system [16]. As
3D printing is a characteristic technology in makerspaces [33] it also shows the need
for further studies on makerspaces in educational contexts.
1.2 Research questions
This systematic literature review addresses strongly on makerspaces in schools.
The main research questions inquire the existence and setup of (physical) makerspac-
es in and used by vocational schools, as well as primary and secondary schools. The
evaluation of the literature shows knowledge gaps, qualitative and quantitative. It is
important to have sufficient data concerning physical setup and infrastructure, finan-
cial support, and organization in the relatively new field of makerspaces in and used
by schools. Successful development and realization of educational makerspaces rely
on a sound scientific base concerning infrastructure, funding, and administrative or-
ganization. Therefore, additional investigation is needed. This work considers the
following points of inquiry:
• Infrastructure: Existence, location, and setup of (physical) makerspaces in and used
by vocational schools, as well as primary and secondary schools
• Financial structure: Possibilities for funding and economic development of mak-
erspaces in and used by schools
• Organizational structure: Administration, accessibilities, responsibilities, instruc-
tors, and user groups of makerspaces in and used by schools
58
http://www.i-jep.org
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
2 Search Strategy and Selection Criteria
Two different electronic journal databases, Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) and ScienceDirect, acted as source for this literature review to
achieve a very well-defined cross section of literature to outline the topic of mak-
erspaces in and used by schools. These databases were chosen to highlight an engi-
neering context according to a first focus on vocational schools, which had to be ex-
panded on primary and secondary schools due to insufficient literature as an assumed
consequence of a relatively small number of vocational schools. This research in-
cludes reviewed articles published in these databases up to June 1st, 2019. Only pa-
pers written in English were considered. The keywords used for literature extraction
were “makerspace AND school”; “makerspace AND vocational AND education”;
“makerspace AND primary AND education”; “makerspace AND secondary AND
education”.
The databases provided 67 hits (ScienceDirect 53; IEEE 14) whereof 31 proved to
be valid according to the following selection criteria (valid: ScienceDirect 21, IEEE
10; invalid: ScienceDirect 32, IEEE 4). In a first selection all articles lacking educa-
tional context (e.g. medical prothesis research done by a School of Engineering with
no other connection to school or university) where dismissed using only title and
abstract. In a second selection stage the full texts were considered with the inclusion
criteria of makerspace OR maker activity in primary OR secondary OR vocational
school OR university and exclusion criteria of missing context to school AND mak-
erspace (e.g. industrial makerspaces, …).
3 Findings
Out of the 31 valid publications two address only virtual spaces for making activi-
ties like programming [4, 18] which will not be further discussed in this work. 22
papers mention physical makerspaces (actual physical spaces equipped for making
activities). A majority of the presented literature examines the topics of this research
only scarcely as Ferri et al. describe: ”[The makerspace] is outfitted primarily with
laser cutters, 3D printers, woodworking equipment, and other mechanical engineering
focused machines” [2] and mainly documents the making activities. Nonetheless this
information is used to develop a taxonomy concerning physical existing makerspaces
in schools and used by schools. “No two makerspaces are the same. Each one is
unique because it is designed with a specific purpose – to serve the individual and
community where it is located.” [29] We truly endorse this statement of Ensign and
Leupold because it proves the difficulty to categorize makerspaces as a whole and still
leads to an approach to classify makerspaces used in a school context with reference
to the location.
iJEP ‒ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021
59
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
3.1 Taxonomy concerning physical existing makerspaces in schools and used
by schools
The findings of literature suggest four main categories of real-world makerspaces
used for educational purposes in and by schools:
1. External makerspaces
2. School makerspaces
3. Open makerspaces located in schools
4. Temporary (Pop-up) makerspaces
This research defines “external makerspaces” as rooms or spaces outside the
school premises equipped for making activities, like commercial makerspaces, library
makerspaces and similar. These external makerspaces hold the opportunity of cost
since the school does not have to own the machinery and technological knowledge if
trained experts are available. Another benefit of out of school environments is de-
scribed by Dreessen and Schepers in 2019 by being low-stakes (non-evaluative), so
“they provide opportunities for students to play or experiment with science and pur-
sue new ideas or particularly motivating ones when there is interest.” [9] In their work
they write about a workshop in an external (commercial) makerspace where students
and teachers started to realize an artefact which could be finished in class or at home.
Martinich, Lehr et al. described a typical cooperation between a high school and a
professional makerspace accompanied by a university. “Students work in the class-
room on a Keystone Project, and complete fabrication of their ideas at the Tech Shop
facilities. Students receive membership at Tech Shop and guidance on their projects.”
[23]
A hybrid form of external and school makerspace is featured by Compton et al. in
2017. The so called “MakerBus” is a school bus remodeled into a driving makerspace.
Parked on school premises it serves as a temporary school makerspace. [7]
Hira et al. state in 2014 that makerspace inclusion in schools or classroom spaces
“is a new idea that has surfaced in the academic community rather recently” [1].
Their definition of a makerspace is a very inclusive, as they define classroom mak-
erspaces as places for students to come together and make things irrespective of the
materials being used. They depict makerspaces not as the physical space but a type of
learning environment which promotes the development of technological literacy. The
literature suggests quite different concepts for school or even classroom makerspaces
varying from computer labs with additional 3D printers [32] to fully equipped mak-
erspaces with laser cutters, 3D printers, mechanical and electronic tools etc. [15, 20].
In this research school makerspaces are understood very broadly as physical spaces in
a school building or used by schools equipped with the tools necessary for maker
activities. Based on the literature findings a taxonomy concerning physical existing
makerspaces in and used by schools was established as can be seen in Table 1: Tax-
onomy concerning physical existing makerspaces in and used by schools.
60
http://www.i-jep.org
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
Table 1. Taxonomy concerning physical existing makerspaces in and used by schools
Makerspace
taxonomy
Location
Responsi-
bility
Funding
Instruc-
tors
Users
Time
re-
strictions
Activities
School
makerspace
Crafts
room
School
School
Crafts
teachers
Students
During
class
Class pro-
jects,
guided
workshops
Class-
room
School
School
Teachers
Students
During
class
Class pro-
jects,
guided
workshops
School
library
School
School
School
librarians
Students
Opening
hours
Class pro-
jects, private
projects,
guided
workshops
Open
makerspace
located in
school
Extra
physical
space in
school
building
School or
operating
company or
association
School
or oper-
ating
company
or asso-
ciation
Teachers,
profes-
sionals
Any-
body
Opening
hours
Class pro-
jects, private
projects,
professional
projects,
guided
workshops
External
makerspace
Library
Municipali-
ty
Munici-
pality
Librarians
Library
users
Opening
hours
Class pro-
jects, private
projects,
professional
projects,
guided
workshops
Universi-
ty
University
Universi-
ty
University
employees
Stu-
dents,
employ-
ees
Opening
hours
Class pro-
jects, private
projects,
professional
projects,
guided
workshops
Profes-
sional
workshop
Operating
company or
association
Operat-
ing
company
or asso-
ciation
Profes-
sionals
Any-
body
Opening
hours
Class pro-
jects, private
projects,
professional
projects,
guided
workshops
Temporary
(Pop-up)
makerspace
Anywhere
Operating
company or
association
Operat-
ing
company
or asso-
ciation,
anybody
Anybody
Any-
body
Opening
hours
Class pro-
jects, private
projects,
professional
projects,
guided
workshops
Six of nine identified publications on school makerspaces did not specify the phys-
ical space where the making activity took place but concentrated on other aspects [1,
6, 13, 16, 21, 35]. Chu et al. considered the “Maker experience in a formal education-
iJEP ‒ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021
61
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
al context”[6] as very complex regarding institutional structures, environmental fac-
tors and social dynamics whereas Hsu in her work on tourism education described the
role of lecturers in makerspace education with the words “co-creators of knowledge
alongside students”[21]. Some elementary and secondary schools in Canada have
developed makerspaces which are usually located in classrooms or school libraries
[29]. Sweden is currently running a large-scale national testbed on makerspaces in
schools. More than 30 formal actors are involved and explore the idea of recasting
school´s craft environments into makerspaces [13]. Technology Comprehension is the
name of a new subject in Denmark´s curricula with a very strong makerspace affilia-
tion. It includes “computing skills, design and development of a digital solutions and
the evaluation of these solutions, including a socio-political context” [35] but does not
define the physical teaching space. Saorín et al. name makerspaces of the High School
of Sierra Vista de La Puente, in California, and of the high school of Monticello, in
Charlottesville, Virginia, but do not to give further information to answer the research
questions in detail. They state that these makerspaces “contribute to the decrease of
school absenteeism and the improvement in the performance of subjects such as
mathematics or the fostering of a greater interest in Science and Engineering de-
grees.” [33] Further they present the 2008 launched project “FabLab@School” by
Stanford University which started the building of makerspaces in primary and sec-
ondary schools with the example of MC2STEM High School of Ohio and a project
called “MakerSpace” with funding of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency).
This was the only information on the funding of all discussed maker spaces.
Though, Hira et al. stated the cost, including additional equipment and other supplies,
as a possible barrier for making activities in school. [1] Ho et al. underline the im-
portance that “economic support should not solely be derived from user fees, which
may be perceived by users as a loss of control and autonomy over their project. Prac-
titioners should seek economic support from a variety of sources as appropriate, in-
cluding user fees, corporate and community donations, and external grants.” [19]
Industry-school cooperation in makerspaces could be used to acquire the necessary
funds. It can also address another issue stated by Chen, Hoople et al. “What is consid-
ered ‘engineering expertise’ in academia may not align with what is considered exper-
tise in industry.” [5]
3.2 Maker culture, interdisciplinary and openness
Despite the obvious question of funding, the attention of previous work was con-
centrated on the maker culture which provides students communication, guidance,
and support. [36] Questioning, observation and giving instruction were identified by
Chu et al. as the main ways by which potential opportunities for learning happen.
According to their work the maker experience “amplified the likelihood of a particu-
lar behavior resulting in some form of learning.” [6] Another aspect of making pre-
sented in the literature is the trial and error process. “Failure, or something not work-
ing out as expected, is often a part of the development process” [28] and so an integral
part of making. Non-functioning artefacts are usually not intended in assessed student
62
http://www.i-jep.org
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
work and will probably be graded poorly still they are inevitable for an innovative
development process. Cornejo et. Al understand “ ’failure’ as something to be learned
from and […] an important step towards continuous improvement.”[8] These findings
suggest that evaluation and grading of students in makerspaces are also aspects to
consider when looking at makerspaces in educational contexts and its effects on dif-
ferent disciplines however not the focal point of this work. Ercan, Sale and Kristian
observed that “certain key features such as interdisciplinary, collaborative active and
experiential learning, and authentic assessment for learning” develop the “engineering
as well as communication and teamwork skills of students […] significantly”.[11]
The scope of subjects introducing making activities is wide, even using a makerspace
for ocean technology education [27] was investigated. Another study found “that
students who use the space either for class projects or for their own personal projects
had significantly higher inmajor GPAs than students who did not use the space” [10].
So, the effect of making with regards to the students’ grades and academic success
was examined there. The fact that students say “I get to do things on my own” [16] in
formal education seems like an important learning motivation.
Fox described the making process in school makerspaces to involve “most struc-
ture and least agency” compared to other making environments [17], which seems to
be owed to the necessity of teachers to grade the students’ work. Ramey and Stevens
pronounce the makerspace a “creative scene”, where “education is cross-
organizational, inter-spatial and interdisciplinary. It breaks the closed boundaries in
order to truly realize the integration of innovation” [31] whereas Tomko et al. 2017
identify the flexibility and openness of makerspaces as keys “to how the students
make sense of their instrumental and relational value”. [25] There are several charac-
teristics of a makerspace that can be “open”, like the building space, the used soft-
and hardware, the accessibility, or the user group. The finding that “Knowledge crea-
tion and sharing spaces transcend organizational boundaries”[3] and the stated fact
that “Most activities could not be undertaken with the resources available to an indi-
vidual or when working alone” [29] give reason to think that opening makerspaces in
schools for divergent user groups including students and teachers as well as other
persons interested in making artefacts would be beneficial. Open makerspaces located
in schools show way to bring making into schools and tend to stimulate a very diverse
audience as “Digital fabrication technologies should foster curiosity, engagement and
motivation for learning among students of all ages.” [22] As “The Maker community
of practice is brought together by a common interest in Making, have a shared
knowledge in how to Make things, and regularly learn techniques from others in the
Maker community” [26] divergent agents in a makerspace enrich the making envi-
ronment with multiple ideas, techniques and knowledge and so the makerspaces “in-
crease the chance that makers will discover others with similar project interests” and
may be “leading to potential business partnerships when commercial opportunities
arise.” [3] These business opportunities are important assets for last year students in
vocational schools, high schools, and universities. The commercial aspect and the
openness are opposing qualities of makerspaces as identified by Langley et al. “It
seems that the presence of conditional sharing is important when one tries to further
iJEP ‒ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021
63
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
commercialize, while the presence of unconditional sharing is important to keep the
sharing and community spirit alive for attracting new participants.” [24]
3.3 The development trajectory of a school makerspace
The development trajectory of a school makerspaces according to Langley et al.
(see Fig. 1: Langley, Zirngiebl et al. 2017 - Trajectories to reconcile sharing.jpg [24] )
is clearly the path of the so called “Dependent social idealist” as no commercial as-
pects are included whereas the open makerspace located in schools could also take the
turn and become a “Social enterprise” which would be preferable, because the mak-
erspace would not stress school budget. Unfortunately, the literature used in this re-
search did not present any open makerspaces located in schools so far. The only open
makerspaces in educational facilities were installed in numerous universities in the
last couple of years. [2, 10, 25, 27, 31, 33, 36] The funding of these makerspace did
not present itself in the used literature.
Fig. 1. Development trajectories of maker initiatives in terms of commercialization logics
according to Langley, Zirngiebl et al. [24]
4 Study Limitations
Makerspaces in schools as well as maker education are relatively new fields of sci-
entific research as the earliest relevant article in the considered literature dates to
2014. The number of articles on makerspaces and schools peaked to 12 per year in
2017 (compare to Fig. 2: Number of articles on makerspaces and schools). According
64
http://www.i-jep.org
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
to these numbers there are five possible conclusions: (i) Makerspaces in and used by
schools are very rare; (ii) Makerspaces in and used by schools are rarely the subject of
scientific research; (iii) Makerspaces in and used by schools are a relatively new field
of research and so their appearance in the literature is delayed to their appearance (iv)
The literature on ScienceDirect and IEEE is not representative and other databases
should be considered as well as follow up literature; (v) Any combination of the
above.
Fig. 2. Number of articles on makerspaces and schools
Further limitation to the literature were the publication language English and the
demand of being reviewed. These requirements might not cover papers and reports
written by primary, secondary, and vocational teachers or educational staff in differ-
ent counties with diverse native languages.
5 Conclusion
Lande and Jordan predicted in 2014 that “the learning-focused use of making and
tinkering” [26] may come forward in science and engineering classes. What they did
not know, is that making did not limit itself on these subjects. In this research a lot of
examples of using making activities were presented in very different fields as they
offer “different perspective in the learning process, as it gives learners the opportunity
to have control over their own knowledge, instead of being passive recipients.” [30]
Even though makerspaces in and used by schools are a relatively new development,
the research already presents some valuable data (compare Figure 2: Number of arti-
cles on makerspaces and schools) on the infrastructure, which we used to deduce a
taxonomy concerning physical existing makerspaces in and used by schools (see
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 until 6/2019
Number
Year
Number of articles on
makerspaces and schools
iJEP ‒ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021
65
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
Table 1). Four main categories were identified: External makerspaces, school mak-
erspaces, open makerspaces located in schools, and temporary (Pop-up) makerspaces.
According to the research questions the taxonomy examines infrastructure, financial
structure, and organizational structure of makerspaces in and used by schools featur-
ing location, responsibility, funding, instructors, users, time restrictions, and activi-
ties. This research also shows the diversity of making in schools and its interdiscipli-
narity. The openness of a makerspace seems to be an important factor for informal
knowledge transfer and potential (business) partnerships enriching the school envi-
ronment. To operate a makerspace in school as a “Social enterprise” [24] is identified
to be preferable (as discussed in 3.3 The development trajectory of a school mak-
erspace). Therefore, especially the category of open makerspaces located in schools
seems in need of further research.
6 References
[1] A. Hira, C. H. Joslyn, and M. M. Hynes, Eds. 2014. Classroom makerspaces: Identifying
the opportunities and challenges. 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Pro-
ceedings. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2014.7044263
[2] B. Ferri, K. Pham, J. Steinberg, W. Williams, and K. Ferri, Eds. 2017. Practical skills and
design: A maker course for ECE students. 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
(FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2017.8190477
[3] R. E. Browder, H. E. Aldrich, and S. W. Bradley, 2019. The emergence of the maker
movement: Implications for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing 34,
3, 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.01.005
[4] C. Chytas, I. Diethelm, and A. Tsilingiris, Eds. 2018. Learning programming through de-
sign: An analysis of parametric design projects in digital fabrication labs and an online
makerspace. 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON).
https://doi.org/10.1109/educon.2018.8363478
[5] D. A. Chen, G. D. Hoople, N. Ledwith, E. Burlingame, S. D. Bush, and G. E. Scott, 2020.
Exploring Faculty and Student Frameworks for Engineering Knowledge Using an Online
Card Sorting Platform. Int. J. Eng. Ped. 10, 1, 62. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v10i1.11336
[6] S. L. Chu, G. Angello, M. Saenz, and F. Quek, 2017. Fun in Making: Understanding the
experience of fun and learning through curriculum-based Making in the elementary school
classroom. Entertainment Computing 18, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.entcom.2016.08.007
[7] M. E. Compton, K. Martin, and R. Hunt, 2017. Where do we go from here? Innovative
technologies and heritage engagement with the MakerBus. Digital Applications in Ar-
chaeology and Cultural Heritage 6, 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.04.002
[8] M. G. Cornejo, B. O'Hara, F. Tarazona-Vasquez, F. Barrios, and M. Power, 2018. Moray:
Bridging an Ancient Culture of Innovation with Emerging Pedagogies in Engineering. Int.
J. Eng. Ped. 8, 4, 43. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v8i4.8139
[9] K. Dreessen, and S. Schepers, 2019. Foregrounding backstage activities for engaging chil-
dren in a FabLab for STEM education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interac-
tion. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.02.001
[10] E. C. Hilton, R. L. Nagel, and J. S. Linsey, Eds. 2018. Makerspace Involvement and Aca-
demic Success in Mechanical Engineering. 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
(FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2018.8658875
66
http://www.i-jep.org
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
[11] F. Ercan, D. Sale, and N. Kristian, 2016. Innovative Curriculum to Enhance the Learning
Experience of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Students. Int. J. Eng. Ped. 6, 3, 37.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v6i3.5765
[12] M. F. Ercan, 2013. Integration in Engineering Education: A Trial Run. Int. J. Eng. Ped. 3,
3, 61
[13] E. Eriksson, C. Heath, P. Ljungstrand, and P. Parnes, 2018. Makerspace in school—
Considerations from a large-scale national testbed. International Journal of Child-
Computer Interaction 16, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.10.001
[14] M. Esselman, B. Gardner, and M. Gillespie, 2017. Operation Breakthrough in 2017 Builds
on the Past. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care 47, 9, 235–237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2017.07.011
[15] C. Flores, 2018. Problem-based science, a constructionist approach to science literacy in
middle school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 16, 25–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.11.001
[16] S. Ford, and T. Minshall, 2019. Invited review article: Where and how 3D printing is used
in teaching and education. Additive Manufacturing 25, 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.addma.2018.10.028
[17] S. Fox, 2017. Mass imagineering: Combining human imagination and automated engineer-
ing from early education to digital afterlife. Technology in Society 51, 163–171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.001
[18] M. N. Giannakos, and L. Jaccheri, 2018. From players to makers: An empirical examina-
tion of factors that affect creative game development. International Journal of Child-
Computer Interaction 18, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.002
[19] S.-Y. Han, J. Yoo, H. Zo, and A. P. Ciganek, 2017. Understanding makerspace continu-
ance: A self-determination perspective. Telematics and Informatics 34, 4, 184–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.02.003
[20] N. Holbert, 2016. Leveraging cultural values and “ways of knowing” to increase diversity
in maker activities. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 9-10, 33–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2016.10.002
[21] C. H. C. Hsu, 2018. Tourism education on and beyond the horizon. Tourism Management
Perspectives 25, 181–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.022
[22] O. S. Iversen, R. C. Smith, P. Blikstein, E.-S. Katterfeldt, and J. C. Read, 2015. Digital
fabrication in education: Expanding the research towards design and reflective practices.
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 5, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.ijcci.2016.01.001
[23] L. P. Martinich, T. Lehr, and D. Sangam, Eds. 2014. Make the World a better place: An
association-industry-academia partnership. 2014 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Con-
ference. https://doi.org/10.1109/isecon.2014.6891034
[24] D. J. Langley, M. Zirngiebl, J. Sbeih, and B. Devoldere, 2017. Trajectories to reconcile
sharing and commercialization in the maker movement. Business Horizons 60, 6, 783–
794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.07.005
[25] M. E. Tomko, J. Linsey, R. Nagel, and M. W. Alemán, Eds. 2017. Exploring meaning-
making and innovation in makerspaces: An ethnographic study of student and faculty per-
spectives. 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109
/fie.2017.8190580
[26] M. Lande and S. Jordan, Eds. 2014. Making it together, locally: A making community
learning ecology in the Southwest USA. 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
(FIE) Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2014.7044394
[27] M. Saul, Ed. 2016. Exploration and remote instrumentation by Students (ERIS): Video
documentation in undergraduate ocean technology education. OCEANS 2016 MTS/IEEE
Monterey. https://doi.org/10.1109/oceans.2016.7761302
iJEP ‒ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021
67
Paper—Developing a Taxonomy Concerning Physical Existing Makerspaces in and Used by Schools
[28] A. V. Maltese, A. Simpson, and A. Anderson, 2018. Failing to learn: The impact of fail-
ures during making activities. Thinking Skills and Creativity 30, 116–124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.01.003
[29] P. C. Ensign and P. Leupold, Eds. 2018. Grassroots Opportunities for Innovation, Tech-
nology, and Entrepreneurship: Makerspaces in Non-Urban Communities. 2018 Portland
International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET).
https://doi.org/10.23919/picmet.2018.8481850
[30] S. Papavlasopoulou, M. N. Giannakos, and L. Jaccheri, 2017. Empirical studies on the
Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment
Computing 18, 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002
[31] Q. Zhan and M. Yang, Eds. 2017. A model of maker education in China universities by
smart technologies: The perspective of innovation ecosystem. 2017 IEEE 2nd International
Conference on Big Data Analysis (ICBDA). https://doi.org/10.1109/icbda.2017.8078711
[32] K. E. Ramey, and R. Stevens, 2018. Interest development and learning in choice-based, in-
school, making activities: The case of a 3D printer. Learning, Culture and Social Interac-
tion. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.11.009
[33] J. L. Saorín, D. Melian-Díaz, A. Bonnet, C. Carbonell Carrera, C. Meier, and J. de. La Tor-
re-Cantero, 2017. Makerspace teaching-learning environment to enhance creative compe-
tence in engineering students. Thinking Skills and Creativity 23, 188–198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.01.004
[34] S. Schön, M. Ebner, M., and S. Kumar, 2014. The Maker Movement. Implications of new
digital gadgets, fabrication tools and spaces for creative learning and teaching. eLearning
Papers 39, 14–25.
[35] A. Tuhkala, M.-L. Wagner, O.S. Iversen, T. and Kärkkäinen, 2019. Technology Compre-
hension — Combining computing, design, and societal reflection as a national subject. In-
ternational Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.ijcci.2019.03.004
[36] Y. Wang, W. Zhou, and L. Lu, Eds. 2017. Multi-dimensional computer basic education
practice and research. 2017 12th International Conference on Computer Science and Edu-
cation (ICCSE). https://doi.org/10.1109/iccse.2017.8085588
[37] A. Brahms, “Representation error for real numbers in binary computer arithmetic,” IEEE
Computer Group Repository, Paper R-67-85.
7 Authors
Nanna Nora Sagbauer is a Ph.D. student at the doctoral school of Computer Sci-
ence at Graz University of Technology. She is researching the field of makerspaces
for educational purposes. Additionally, she teaches electrical engineering at the Tech-
nical Collage Hollabrunn.
Martin Ebner is the head of Department Educational Technology at Graz Univer-
sity of Technology and therefore responsible for all university wide e-learning activi-
ties. He holds an Adjunct Prof. on media informatics (research area: educational tech-
nology) and his research focuses strongly on seamless learning, learning analytics,
open educational resources, maker education and computer science for children. More
info see: http://martinebner.at
Article submitted 2020-07-14. Resubmitted 2020-11-25. Final acceptance 2020-12-23. Final version
published as submitted by the authors.
68
http://www.i-jep.org
